Insider Research and Validity

The term 'insider research' describes projects where researchers are directly involved in or connected to the research layout (Robson, 2002). This type of research contradicts traditional views of scientifically sound studies, in which researchers are 'objective outsiders' who explore subjects external to themselves (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Researchers can be categorised as insiders in various ways. For example, professionals may conduct a study in their work setting—also called practitioner research (Robson, 2002). Researchers may be members of the community they are studying or they may become accepted members after spending some time within the community. Collaborative research where both researchers and participants actively conduct the research (Jarvis, 1999) exemplifies the 'blurring of boundaries' between researchers and researched, entailing allegations of invalidity.

Such boundaries are eliminated when researchers become the subject of study, as in personal narrative. With insider research, validity becomes much more problematic due to researchers' involvement with the subject of study. Positivists argue that following this involvement, researchers are no longer 'objective', leading to biased findings. Thus, from this essentially correspondent view of validity – whereby `valid' or `true' knowledge corresponds to an objective world – validity of insider research is undermined (Kvale, 1995). On the other hand, neo-positivists and anti-positivists claim that because complete objectivity is impossible, researchers' biases threaten validity or trustworthiness. This gave rise to the following questions:

o Would my relationships with the participants have a negative impact on their behaviour so that they behave differently from their normal behaviour?

o Would my tacit knowledge cause them to misinterpret data or make false assumptions?

o Would my insider knowledge lead them to make assumptions and miss potentially important information?

o Would my politics, loyalties, or hidden agendas lead to misrepresentations? o Would my moral/political/cultural standpoints cause them to subconsciously

bias data?

In this light, awareness of these issues guided my research procedures as well as consultation with critical friends. Moreover, as an expressive art therapist I was aware of the transference (defined as a phenomenon characterized by unconscious redirection of feelings from one person to another, Webster, 1976) and projection procedures (defined as a psychological defense mechanism in which a person attributes his or her own characteristics to another person, American Psychological Association, 2009) and how they could be countered within all the research processes. Therefore I myself went under regular professional supervision, as the British Association of Dramatherapists requires, in the section relating to psychotherapy perspectives and psychodynamic “… understanding of theories of the unconscious, theories of the therapeutic relationship, the management of group process; unconscious processes including transference and counter-transference …” (https://vimeo.com/68339877) as well as the Israeli association of expressive creative arts requires that all practising therapists have themselves (the Israeli Association of Art Therapy, Y.H.A.T.).

Since the current research examined a programme that I had developed, I was faced with the issue of having to decrease possible bias. For that purpose I relied on the in- depth discussion presented by Shkedi (2003) with regard to validity and reliability in qualitative research.

Following is a description of the principles on which I relied and the way in which I acted.

Characteristics of validity in qualitative research

Measurements using unique personal or professional criteria are valid in the qualitative- constructivist research approach (Shkedi, 2003), since the assumption is that constructivist qualitative research comprises many perspectives on which a researcher can base measurements and none of them is initially incorrect or preferred. The question of the research validity does not depend on whether a specific criterion is legitimate but rather on honest exposure of the researcher's perspectives. This exposure allows researchers and readers to determine the validity of the measurement; that is, validity is related to the question, does the researcher see what he or she thinks he/she sees?

A valid explanation is such that can be defended properly both conceptually and empirically. In constructivist qualitative research, measurement criteria are determined during the research process and they may change, be adjusted, or modified in the process of analysis. As mentioned above, this study can always analyse the same phenomenon in different ways depending on the values of the researcher's area of interest. The research findings may be valid if they are properly based on the researcher's declared perspective.

Due to my awareness, I have adhered to this approach. I have made sure that the research process and its products are well grounded not only in terms of the appropriate use of data collection methods and analysis, but also that the research contentions would be highly probable. Also, I examined the research process regularly by rereading the data, listening to the interviews repeatedly, and watching the photos and videos, while keeping updated with the theories and research, reflecting in my diary, and checking the data and analysis procedures.

Another criterion suggested by Shkedi (2003) is that of theoretical validity, which is applied in qualitative-constructivist research differently from the way it is applied in quantitative positivist research. In the qualitative-constructivist approach, the theoretical aspect develops along with the research process and is repeatedly restructured until writing the final report and does not constitute an a priori statement. In the context of this theoretical criterion I acted with awareness throughout the research process.

Process of examining research validity

Shkedi (2003) maintained that the researcher's awareness of his or her conceptual perspective may help avoid research mistakes, as researchers have no other way of examining validity except for ongoing personal interaction. We can never be fully convinced that we understand the cultural meanings of each researched phenomenon, but a sensitive field researcher equipped with theoretical orientation and good trustful long term relationships with the participants is the best research tool available (Kirk and Miller, 1986).

In my research I have been aware of this issue; I had come to the research with a rich theoretical bank and have continued to enrich it. I have acted wisely and sensitively with the participants I have come to know over time. In qualitative-constructivist research, the researcher must maintain a chain of evidence for each research stage, such as transcribing interviews, saving any relevant information, documents, and stages of analysis from the raw stage of collecting information to the different stages of analysis to the final findings and conclusions (Yin, 1981) therefore this awareness guided and reflected my research process.

Using the process of analysis in several stages helps researchers to defend themselves in the face of misleading forces, and to a certain extent, forces the researcher to question his or her own judgment. Saving documents at every stage allows the researcher to examine the extent to which he or she was true to the data obtained from the participants and identify the sources of their mistakes. It also opened up the possibility of participants reviewing analyses to verify or dispute interpretation of findings.

As a researcher who is aware of issues of validity and reliability (Shkedi, 2003), I have made every possible effort to minimize possible bias due to my being both the programme's developer and researcher. I made sure to analyse the data in a number of stages, adhere to the interviewee's statements and interpretations of the researched reality, and to critically examine the findings a number of times.

As the researcher of such a programme, it is important to be aware throughout the data analysis phase of the possibility of projection and transference on my part. Therefore, I took precautions to avoid any possible bias by adhering to the ethical code indicated by Shkedi (2011). Moreover, as stated above, I was under professional supervision in

which these issues of possible projection and transference would have been expected to appear during the data analysis process.

Thick Description

Another way to examine research validity is writing the final report as a thick description – a focused description or a thick theoretical description that includes information about the context, appropriate quotes of participants' statements, and an overt conceptual discussion. This way allows examining the extent to which the argument or the research conclusions are compelling. A good description has the potential of allowing the researcher to examine himself or herself once again, allow colleagues to respond critically, and then convince readers (or not) of the final report that the research process and conclusions are valid.

An additional process that allows for validation is use of triangulation, which means using a variety of sources of information to enhance the validity of findings. It has to be noted that the goal of triangulation in this context is to strengthen the research in its entirety, beyond the issue of collecting information (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Stake, 2000).

Characteristics of Reliability

In constructivist qualitative research, another researcher cannot be expected to reconstruct in a similar or even identical manner exactly the same research findings. The basis for determining the reliability of research analysis is the open exposure of the researcher's conceptual perspective. Therefore, the researcher must reveal how the research was conducted and how decisions were made, so that the reader can judge the quality of research and examine the logic and reason behind of the importance of the researcher and his or her activities (Arksey & Knight, 1999). I followed these guidelines throughout the thesis and presented all the stages and procedures in the appendices. Characteristics of constructivist qualitative research focusing on researchers as a preferred research tool challenge those who claim lack of reliability. When the research process is based on a researcher's unique personal perspective, how can they and others examine their own reliability?

Therefore, Shkedi (2003) presents a demand for formal overt stages of data collection and analysis. This process is based on the following three conditions: (1) Creating a database, which readers can view and examine at any time rather than just reading the final report; (2) preservation of analysed documents—a process that comprises a number of stages congruent with the research aims. Each stage of analysis is accompanied by its unique documents and protocols, to enable reconstruction of analysis processes and thus examine research reliability; (3) Presenting a chain of evidence in the final report, integrating quotes and contexts that pertain to the research questions and relevant issues, in a way that enables readers to identify the connection between the research process and the research questions. Hence, it is essential that the researcher provide a meticulous description of research methods.

In this light, I have worked as a researcher who is aware of all the issues presented above. I created a database, preserved the analysed documents, and present a chain of evidence in the final report.

Insider research encompasses many advantages. Some stipulate that insiders have extensive knowledge to which outsiders are not privy (Tedlock, 2000). It is argued that interviewees may feel more comfortable and freer to talk openly if they are familiar with researchers (Tierney, 1994). From an anti-positivist perspective, therefore, my position as an insider researcher has the potential for increasing validity due to the added richness, honesty, fidelity, and authenticity of the information obtained. Advocates (Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, 1998, 2001; Shkedi, 2003) of anti-positivism and anti-positivist qualitative research maintain that arguments against insider research are applicable to all types of research. For example, one can never guarantee participants' honesty and openness, and research is always coloured by our subjectivities.

Since it is impossible to achieve complete objectivity, I focused on minimising the impact of bias on the research process as discussed by Shkedi (2003). Hence, the aim was to conduct the research while taking into consideration its socially situated character as well as making my position vis-à-vis the research process transparent (Hammersley, 2000). By making the research process transparent and honest, I invite readers to construct their own perspectives, which 'are equally as valid as our own' (Cohen et al., 2004, p. 106).